A U.S. judge has ruled that victims can sue two close associates of the late Jeffrey Epstein for their alleged roles in facilitating his sex trafficking operations.
U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian in Manhattan dismissed claims from Epstein's former lawyer Darren Indyke and former accountant Richard Kahn that the victims were barred from pursuing a class action because they had previously settled claims against Epstein’s estate.
However, the judge paused the class action due to a release agreement signed by Danielle Bensky, one of the named plaintiffs, which covered her claims against Indyke and Kahn. Bensky was recruited into Epstein's network in 2004 while aspiring to be a dancer. Subramanian did allow another plaintiff, Jane Doe 3, to potentially pursue claims and file for class certification when appropriate.
Indyke's lawyer, Daniel Weiner, responded by strongly denying any involvement or knowledge of Epstein’s misconduct. He highlighted that 134 women who received over $121 million from the estate and more than 50 other women who settled separately had signed similar releases.
Victims' lawyer Sigrid McCawley expressed satisfaction with the ruling, stating, “We are thrilled with the fact that the Epstein survivors will proceed against Epstein’s right-hand money men to hold them accountable.” Epstein died, supposedly by suicide, in a Manhattan jail in August 2019, a month after his arrest on sex trafficking charges. Ghislaine Maxwell, a close associate of Epstein, is currently awaiting an appeals court decision on her 2021 conviction for aiding his abuses.
Victims allege that Indyke and Kahn played crucial roles in managing Epstein’s financial operations, which helped him conceal his crimes and compensate his victims and recruiters. McCawley and another victims' lawyer, David Boies, secured $365 million in settlements from JPMorgan Chase after accusing the bank of ignoring warning signs related to Epstein.
The cases are Bensky et al v Indyke et al, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 24-01204; and Doe 3 v Indyke et al, No. 24-02192.
